Revised new - M&S planning application to replace Iceland..

[stephent]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> the-e-dealer Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I think its a bigger Question.. Let Lordship

> Lane

> > Develop and Grow as a shopping centre or chop

> it

> > off at its knees.

>

> I think you're right in saying there is a bigger

> question. I like shopping in Lordship Lane because

> they offer a unique shopping experience and is one

> mile from where I live. Once the chain retailers

> moves in and replaces the independents then you

> will have a phenomenon called 'Clone Towns' where

> the shopping experience is indistinguishable from

> other areas. I have shopped in Cambridge,

> Nottingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and

> Birmingham and you see the same old chain stores

> selling the same old stuff. No room for

> individuality whatsoever.

>

I agree, although not sure I'd put Iceland in the 'independent' category... :)

[Undisputedtruth]

I suggest the following points to kill off the M&S planning application:

1) M&S proposal to have four deliveries between the antisocial time of 6 to 7am is likely to cause noise distress to local residents on Chesterfield Grove.

2) M&S proposal to nearly double retail floor space, from 450 to 830 sq metres, is likely to cause nuisance to local residents due to increase car traffic, car parking space issues and impede local public transports, particularly buses, on Lordship Lane as cars turns into Chesterfield Grove. M&S customers are more affluent and likely to drive to the store.

3) The National Planning Framework calls for "promote competitive town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer and which reflect the individuality of town centres". Removal of Iceland for M&S removes choice for our poorest community. *Southwark is the tenth most deprived borough in London and 20th nationally. It may also have a disproportionate effect on poor children since Southwark has one of the highest child poverty in London. Particular issues that Southwark faces include disadvantage in income, housing, crime and health.

4) M&S presence in Lordship Lane duplicates luxury food being sold by East Dulwich Deli at 15 Lordship Lane as well as a number of other distinguish retailers. The Deli also has a concession at Harrods and this confirms its status as a luxury retailer.

5) The Dulwich site represents a poor choice given M&S commitment to sustainability using public transport, a desire to increase presence in the South East London area and their requirement for retail floor space to the size of 1500 sq metres. Peckham have larger sites with better integrated public transport including the arrival of the East London Line in December 2012.

*Statistics taken from http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/london/child-poverty-in-london-the-facts/southwark-41/

Let me know what you think LondonMix as this is just a rough draft version. And yes I know there's a M&S in Brixton. I was in it last week but was very quiet compared to Iceland across the road. I suspect there isn't much demand for all things M&S. ;-)

ETA: I do agree Iceland is not in the 'independent category', stephent, but I do feel that our High Street should serve the whole of the community and not just for the select few.

[LondonMix]

I don't think M&S Simply Food is in direct competition with existing independent stores. The M&S Simply Food format is convenience food. If M&S want the site under the planning application extension, its not for us to say that they need an even bigger site than what is being proposed. There are still low cost options within the area and an Iceland in Peckham (and many throughout Southwark in areas where your statistics are more representative than in ED). The site is near public transport and the plans don't allow for parking so I am not sure how this contracdicts M&S's policy regarding sustainability using public transport. Anyhow, none of this has to do with the planning application...

The inconvenience caused by the new shop and flats needs to be weighed carefully. I would object to the delivery times, I wouldn't object to the flats (as despite the inconvenience, I think London is in desperate need of housing), and my views on the extension as I previously said depends on the factors I already mentioned.

I have no ideological attachment one way or another. I don't shop at M&S or Iceland. Whatever is best for the high street!

Off to bed :)

[Undisputedtruth]

Sorry to disagree LondonMix.

1) M&S are in direct competition with nearby retailers. The only difference is that the independents do less packaging and better quality stuff. :))

2) I have no objection to housing especially as London is expected to grow.

3) It is well known that in London there are pockets of deprivation near to affluent neighbourhoods. No need to prove this point.

4) Lordship Lane is poorly served when compared Peckham's public transport infrastructure. One of M&S planning application arguments is their sustainability public transport matters hence why I decided to question it. An M&S in Peckham would also help its own diversity of shops.

5) The poor are entitled to use their local High Street. To ask them to go to Peckham is plainly wrong and could actually increase their poverty through extra travelling expenses.

6) There are also concerns that supermarket convenience food causes obesity. This adds unnecessary burden to the taxpayers. [source]

7) M&S said that it is their policy to develop site sites consisting of 1400 sq metres. So it's a bit odd that the Dulwich site is much smaller and not ideal to M&S food .

[LondonMix]

We have to agree to disagree on the competition-- I'd be more interested to hear what the local business community on LL think. The limited comments so far on the EDF seem to be in favour.

Iceland also sells unhealthy convenience food so I can't understand your argument there.

Whether or not the less affluent have a legal right to keep less profitable stores on the high street seems questionable-- I say less profitable because I imagine the only reason the freeholder wants M&S is because they will pay more rent.

If M&S don't believe its profitable to operate in Peckham, then it doesn't matter that transport links are better there. They are a business, not a charity and this is commerce, not social engineering.

The planning application is not referendum on M&S. A commercial agreement between two private parties is not the . The objections should be made on the planning application, not M&S's suitability to operate in LL, which the shop clearly has as much right to do as any other legal commercial enterprise.

[Undisputedtruth]

@LM,

I don't think you've grasped the concepts of the National Planning Framework yet. Hence why you're struggling to come to terms with my arguments. Nor did I say Iceland food was more healthy than M&S's. I was simply saying that M&S sells convenience food which are not really healthy. Growth of convenience and fast food are directly related to rates of obesity.

Planning is social engineering otherwise commerce would have built all over green belt lands a long time ago.

[davidh]

we have run an independent shop on LL for nearly 11 years. times are really tough right now and we need any sdort of lift. the arrival of M&S will do that. it will help to turn us into a retail destination. I am aware that many of the forumites would rather we stayed small and not very middle class, but these people should open their eyes. east dulwich has been firmly middle class and somewhat affluent for years. in common with many residents of east dulwich, I love how this village has grown over the last decade and look forward to our future. you may now have a hissy fit and stamp your feet

[DulwichFox]

davidh Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> we have run an independent shop on LL for nearly

> 11 years. times are really tough right now and we

> need any sdort of lift. the arrival of M&S will do

> that. it will help to turn us into a retail

> destination. I am aware that many of the forumites

> would rather we stayed small and not very middle

> class, but these people should open their eyes.

> east dulwich has been firmly middle class and

> somewhat affluent for years. in common with many

> residents of east dulwich, I love how this village

> has grown over the last decade and look forward to

> our future. you may now have a hissy fit and stamp

> your feet

You say you have a shop on Lordship Lane...

Lordship Lane is Not part of Dulwich Village and neither is it a Village in itself.

East Dulwich is Middle Class ??? What exactly does Middle Class mean. ???

I do not associate rows of Terraced Houses and a few gastro bars with being Middle Classed.

You do not indicate which retail outlet you run.

I do not think an M&S on the Lane will improve your situation ??

Fox.

[Marmora Man]

East Dulwich is Middle Class ??? What exactly does Middle Class mean. ???

I do not associate rows of Terraced Houses and a few gastro bars with being Middle Classed.

I imagine DavidH means that neighbours are more likely to earn their living by working in an office, wearing "business clothing" and making meaningful decisions about marketing, IT, other peoples lives, money, health or other matters than driving a bus, digging the road or serving on the tills in Tesco. Also that a greater proportion of the newspapers read are broadsheet rather than tabloid, that organic food has a higher priority than economy and that neighbours would ideally take two holidays a year - one skiing and the other to somewhere warm but not accessible by Easy Jet.

[Jeremy]

If 'middle class' means a large proportion of professionals and office workers, with above average incomes, I think ED is guilty as charged.

But you're right, it's not a village, or even similar!

[the-e-dealer]

dh doesn't do food and will therefore benefit from any increase in visits. And I never shop in Iceland just not my sort of food. It doesn't cater for everyone and why should it.

[Undisputedtruth]

I very much doubt M&S will bring extra trade to the area and I fear it may even lead to its decline as a place renown for its independent stores. Basically M&S is piggybacking on the hard work done by these retailers.

M&S represents naffness and isn't a draw for customers who have discerning taste. They, like myself, will travel down to Brixton Village where you can get the full works of independent retailers and more importantly, surrounded by cool minded people.

I used to be a regular shopper in Waitrose until a few years ago. Once Delia Smith was signed up for their advertising campaign, I stopped shopping there as to separate myself from the influx of affluent chavs. To be honest, the M&S new store represents the same writing on the wall for Lordship Lane.

Lordship Lane could perhaps do with a gift shop chain as to up the competition. I do find stock in the local gift shops rather uninspiring to say the least.

[DulwichFox]

Basically..

Upper class, the immensely wealthy and/or powerful Royalty / Titled People (Lords)

Middle class, managers and highly paid professionals Lawyers / Senior Police / Some Doctors / Surgeons...

Super Stars / Actors

Lower class, people paid average or low wages or receiving "welfare". Some are homeless. Everyone Else.

I once accused a member of The Young Conservatives of being 'Working Class'.

He replied " I'm not working Class. " .... " I'm unemployed. " Classic ..

Fox

[the-e-dealer]

Love the use of lower rather than working foxy. You snob :-)

[krishner]

WHAT NEXT!!!! LIDL to take over GREENLAND!!????

[Penguin68]

A Upper middle class Higher managerial, administrative or professional

B Middle class Intermediate managerial, administrative or professional

C1 Lower middle class Supervisory or clerical and junior managerial, administrative or professional

C2 Skilled working class Skilled manual workers

D Working class Semi and unskilled manual workers

E Those at the lowest levels of subsistence Casual or lowest grade workers, pensioners and others who depend on the welfare state for their income

Technically someone who is umemployed is not 'working class' by definition, they are not working (but may have originated from a different social categorisation) - often social classification, in the UK, classifies people into their 'birth; class - so Lord Prescott considers himself (and may well be considered by others) as working class while clearly, in terms of current status and past recent employment being Upper Middle Class (A) or - obviously, upper class (peer of the realm).

Lord Sugar is immensely wealthy and powerful, as is Richard Branson - but, upper class? Surely not.

Class in the UK is a complete minefield - the A-E classification (based on head of household occupation) can itself be terribly misleading - Asian households often identify the oldest male resident as 'head' - so a household made up mainly of doctors and professionals may be classified as 'E' because the 'head' is a pensioner without private means - being a grandfather living with his family.

In the end the only safe categorisation is self-categorisation - people are what they think they are. So, Dulwichfox - you choose your own social class, but don't think to impose your classification on others.

[increasingly people, of whatever occupation, self classify as middle class, which is probably aspirational, and may reflect not occupation but property ownership - once the key marker as without property (or a male appendage) you couldn't vote.]

[Zebedee Tring]

Why does every *briefcasing* thread descend into a class battle involving so-called posh people, middle classes, lower orders and chavs (and I emphasise "so-called")? This is a planning issue that should be decided on issues such as traffic generation, loss of parking and generation of housing, and not on whether, for example, the likes of M&S and Waitrose are now being invaded by customers who clearly some posters feel are bringing down the tone of the neighbourhood.

N.B. *briefcasing* -an illusion to use of naughty word by dodgy geezer Matt Crawford on a certain radio programme.

[DulwichFox]

the-e-dealer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Love the use of lower rather than working foxy.

> You snob :-)

Snob ?? You have obviosly never met me.

Lower is just the a preset definition Upper / Middle / Lower Class. Nothing to do with Working Class.

I worked in Telecoms. Required a certain level of knowledge. My job was paid above the average wage

I went to work every day. I am working class.

As far as I'm concernered if You go to work. you are working class.

As opposed to the 'Idle' Class which could mean both the Atistocracy and those that are just Lazy.

The Trades Unions helped to give workers better conditions and pay so they were able to buy their own homes.

Owning your own home does not make you middle class.

Like winning the Lottery does not gain you access to the Top Gentle(persons) clubs and mixing with the 'Elite'

You cannot change your Social Status. You are born in to it.

Fox

[Undisputedtruth]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why does every *briefcasing* thread descend into a

> class battle involving so-called posh people,

> middle classes, lower orders and chavs (and I

> emphasise "so-called")? This is a planning issue

> that should be decided on issues such as traffic

> generation, loss of parking and generation of

> housing, and not on whether, for example, the

> likes of M&S and Waitrose are now being invaded by

> customers who clearly some posters feel are

> bringing down the tone of the neighbourhood.

>

> N.B. *briefcasing* -an illusion to use of naughty

> word by dodgy geezer Matt Crawford on a certain

> radio programme.

I'm afraid planning has evolved and the National Planning Framework, released by DCLG in March, gives guidance on ensuring a more diverse retail environment.

[Jenny1]

I would echo those who fear that the arrival of a chain like M and S could damage the valuable mix of shops we currently have on Lordship Lane and might help turn East Dulwich into a rather generic, less pleasant place to live. M and S is fine as it goes - but it really cannot offer anything we don't already have....and risks therefore damaging existing retailers and perhaps creating parking problems. The last thing we want is parking restrictions having to be introduced - it would spell death for much of what we like about Lordship Lane I think.

One of the good things about the area is that it feels more like a proper town than an anonymous suburb. This is - I believe - because there seems to be a genuinely broad mix of people of various types and ages living here. This sense of a more 'real life' environment - not one dominated by one particular type or age of person - is fostered by the character and quality of the independent retailers we have and also the fact that there are shops - like Iceland - which cater for people who have to budget carefully. I haven't read the whole thread - so I don't know if this is an option - but I would have thought the continuation of Iceland would be a very good thing. It offers something that other shops on Lordship Lane don't. And that's what we need - as much diversity as possible.

For those who want ready meals there's Sainsbury's - also some of the indy retailers do lovely ones if you have the cash - and of course if you're commuting there's M and S at London Bridge.

It's the character of Lordship Lane that makes East Dulwich such a wonderful place to live. I've been here for 15 years - long enough to really value the retailers who kept the place going when the area was less fashionable - and also those who have arrived more recently and made it possible to buy any food you could possibly want without having to venture into a supermarket. We have to be quite thoughtful and careful if we want to retain the things that make East Dulwich special.

[Penguin68]

Once again, the choice may be between M&S and an empty shop - if Iceland no longer sees a good business case for it to stay in Lordship Lane. This isn't a referendum, it is a planning application. The planners cannot force Iceland to renew its lease if it doesn't want to. The ground landlord clearly wants a more economically rewarding use of the site - probably the M&S planning application (which would grow the shop footprint) had as its quid pro quo the apartment development - you won't get that if the shop isn't developed as well, I would guess.

We have the chance to bring reasons against the development, sure, but we have no other say over how, or if, the site is used, or by whom.

We can only 'retain things that make East Dulwich special' by buying them up and keeping them, possibly uneconomically. Spare cash available, anyone?

[Undisputedtruth]

I don't accept the scaremongering that there is a choice between an empty shop and M&S. Iceland is a very profitable company where sales were up by 15% compared to 2.5% by M&S food. Furthermore, Iceland was bought by their management. Given its profitability and cash reserves of ?150m they're well placed for expansion and acquisitions.

I rather see an independent retailer take over the site where it's more likely that the neighbours won't be disturbed by articulated lorries at a very anti-social time and add further diversity of offerings to the shopper.

The fight to save Lordship Lane starts against M&S.

@Jenny1 - great post.(tu)

[the-e-dealer]

So what kind of shop of that size would be viable and result in diversification and not require many deliveries? But of course not be be part of a chain but be single new entity?

[the-e-dealer]

Hang on I've got it ! Charity shop!

[gedwina]

99p shop - expanding rapidly into the abc1 demographic.